Roger Wyand KC > Chambers of Nicholas Caddick KC > London, England > Barrister Profile
Hogarth Chambers Offices
Hogarth Chambers
5 NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN
LONDON
WC2A 3RJ
England
- Set Profile
- Go to...
Roger Wyand KC
Position
Barrister specialising in: patents including the whole range of technology from pharmaceutical (BMS v Baker Norton [1999] RPC 253 and [2001] CA RPC 1 second medical use, method of treatment of human body) SKB’s Patent CA [2003] RPC 49; Actavis v Janssen [2008] EWHC 1422; Actavis v Novartis [2009] EWHC Ch 41 and [2010] EWCA Civ 82; genetic engineering MedImmune v Novartis [2012] EWCA Civ 1234; medical devices (Corevalve v Edwards [2008] EWHC; Edwards v Cook [2009] EWHC 1304 and [2010] EWCA Civ 718); to mechanical (Kavanagh v Cameron PCC [2004] RPC 5 prior use, standard of proof; QualChem v Corus [2008] EWPCC 1, [2008] EWCA Civ 177); Broadband Systems Management ASSIA v BT, [2013] EWHC 3768 (Pat), [2014] EWHC (Pat) 4194, [2014] EWCA Civ 1462, EWCA Civ 1513; Agilent v Waters [2002] EWCA Civ 612, [2004] EWHC 2992 and [2005] EWCA Civ 987; patents entitlement proceedings (Ladney and Hendry’s International Application [1998] CA RPC 319 inventorship; added matter Curt G Joa Inc v Fameccanica Data SpA [2018] EWCA Civ 1786; Meter-Tech Llc & Anor. v British Gas Trading Ltd [2016] EWHC 2278 (Pat) ; meaning of rehearing on appeal); trade marks in Registry High Court and CJEU (formerly ECJ) (Philips v Remington [1999] CA RPC 809 validity of shape registration, referred to ECJ [2003] RPC 2), (Scandecor Development v Scandecor Marketing HoL [2002] FSR 122 passing off, validity of registration under 1994 Act referred to ECJ), (Philips v Remington No 2 [1999] ETMR 835 res judicata and issue estoppel); trade marks, parallel importation (Sony v Tesco [2000] ETMR 102 repackaging); admissibility of further evidence on appeal Consolidated Developments v Mr A A Cooper (Tin Pan Alley TM) [2018] EWHC 1727 (Ch); Property Renaissance Ltd T/A Titanic Spa v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd T/A Titanic Hotel Liverpool and Ors. [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch); limitation on defences under the CTR; Marussia Communications Ireland Ltd v Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd & Anor. [2016] EWHC 809 (CH)trade marks, distinctiveness under the 1994 Act, Eastenders v Fullers CA [2003] FSR 44; Arsenal v Reed CA [2003] RPC 39; L’Oréal v Bellure [2006] EWHC Ch 2355, [2007] EWCA Civ 968 CA referred to ECJ and [2010] EWCA Civ 535; Reef Trade Mark CA [2003] RPC 5; has taken an appeal from OHIM to the Court of First Instance; use of trade mark by competitor in Google AdWords (Interflora v Marks & Spencer, referred to the CJEU [2011]); Lloyds & Halifax v Shanley [2014] EWCA Civ 407 (copyright licence); computer program copyright and confidential information (Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition [2000] RPC 95 meaning of substantial part in computer program copyright); copyright in technical drawings (Biotrading v Biohit [1998] CA FSR 109 originality, substantial part, European defence, exclusive distributor); registered designs (Oren v Red Box [1999] FSR 785 right of exclusive licensee, infringement where two configurations shown); copying established by cross-examination ATB Sales Limited v Rich Energy Limited [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) unregistered design rights (Ultraframe v Fielding [2003] RPC 23 must fit, must match, subsistence, ownership); principles of assessment of damages (Blayney v Clogau CA [2003] FSR 19 copyright damages); patent damages (Ultraframe v Eurocell [2006] EWHC 1344; Agilent v Waters (settled during trial)); costs awards under the CPR (West v Fuller [2004] CA FSR 32 and Kavanagh v Cameron [2004] CA FSR 33); CTM validity (Compass Publishing BV v Compass Logistics Ltd [2004] RPC 41); shared goodwill in passing off (Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Plc [2004] RPC 36); protectability of Vodka Diageo v ICB [2010] EWHC 17 and [2010] EWCA Civ 920; extended protection for trade marks with a reputation Daimler v Sany [2009] EWHC 2581; unregistered design right (Lambretta v Teddy Smith [2005] CA RPC 6); Community Registered Design rights (Procter and Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser [2006] EWHC 3154 and [2007] EWCA Civ 936); Internet Blocking 20th Century Fox v BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch); ] Jack Willis v House of Fraser [2014] EWCH 110 (Ch); Mair v ASOS [2015] EWCA Civ 220; BBC v Sports Direct [2013] EWHC 2200 (Ch), [2013] EWHC 2784 (Ch), [2014] EWHC 91 (Ch). He has mediated in several large IP disputes and commercial licence actions.
Career
Called 1973; Middle Temple; QC 1997; Deputy High Court Judge Patents Court 2004; trained mediator; has sat as an arbitrator and appeared in major arbitration involving patent damages.
Languages
Basic French.
Memberships
International Bar Association (committee); Officer of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law; IPBA; Bar European Group; Chancery Bar Association; associate member of CIPA and ITMA.
Education
Lakefield College School, Canada; Rugby School; Downing College, Cambridge (MA Natural Sciences).
Leisure
Walking, photography, ice hockey, Arsenal supporter.
Lawyer Rankings
London Bar > Intellectual property
(Leading Silks)Ranked: Tier 2Hogarth Chambers is strong in handling instructions concerning trade marks, copyright, designs, confidential information, and increasingly, patents. Its members regularly appear before the UKIPO, High Court, and Court of Appeal, as well as the Supreme Court. Head of chambers Nicholas Caddick KC was instructed on behalf of the claimant in Studiocanal Films v Wild Bunch SA, a High Court action regarding a copyright licence agreement for fifteen animated films made by Studio Ghibli. Roger Wyand KC advises on a range of patent cases involving pharmaceuticals, life sciences, and electronics, and Alastair Wilson KC is strong on patent actions with heavy technical content. Andrew Norris KC is another notable group member. In team news, Richard Davis KC, who is also qualified as a patent attorney, made silk in 2023 and Simon Malynicz KC joined the set from Three New Square with a strong practice in contentious trade mark matters – he is representing Tesco in a dispute with Lidl regarding an alleged trademark infringement arising from Tesco’s use of a yellow circle in Tesco Clubcard branding.